Model 69, good or not?

[rogo123]

Want a short barrel .44 mostly for 44 Special cast bullet loads. Like the looks of the 69, but keep hearing a lot about issues, like leading with cast. Is this due to EDM rifling? Also, accuracy issues.

This is going to be about a $1000 involvement, so I need to make sure.

 

[pasound]

The 69 is a very good choice. The Ruger GP100 44 spl is good, too. In my area it's hard to find either one. I own a GP100 44, so I'm a little biased.
Other choices are the SA 44 spl's offered by several different companies, but no SA's from S&W.

 

[rogo123]

I wanted a GP 100 .44, until I saw how thin the forcing cone was. Has this been a worry for you? I have heard of some cracking in this area, but have no idea what loads were used.

 

[pasound]

No problems at all, but I don't stress mine. No wear on the forcing cone, at least nothing I've seen.
I also have two 44 Vaqueros, one mag, one spl. All three usually get to the range at the same time for a "44 day".
Older 200gr Hornady Critical Defense for the possible carry.
Magtech 240 gr bulk jacketed to "plink" with. Shoot a lot of those.
230gr LSWC Keith's in Starline cases with the classic Skeeter load to shoot seriously.
Shoot those for accuracy, and to feel a "real" 44 round.

 

[rogo123]

How hot do you load the GP 100? How often do you shoot those loads?

 

[Yendor357]

I'm one of those guys who cracked the forcing cone on a GP 100, 3 inch in 44 Special. Good gun with a design flaw; that thin barrel shank. Ruger couldn't fix it. So they gave the SR1911 to me instead. My load for the GP 100, 200XTP at 1000 fps.

Then sometime later, I picked up a used M69. I really liked it at first. A lot of guys like them. Nice action.
I never could shoot it that well.
But I saw where a guy put a 69 in a Ransome rest and it shot great. So I assume that I was the problem, not the gun.
A trait of that gun that really bugged me was that different loads shot to very different points of aim.

The SR 1911 is basically the same size as a 69, weighs a mere 2 ounces more (empty vs empty with an empty mag), the 1911 has a much longer sight radius, and carries 8 or 9 rounds of 200XTPs going 1000 fps. I like 4 digit velocities. I shoot the 1911 pretty well.
So for me, what was the point of the 5 shooter?

* A 3 inch 686, not a 2.75 M69, used for size comparison.

 

[Old18C]

They are EXCELLENT revolvers. I wear one often unless I am going to a populated area. Normally, with a snake load up front in AZ. Very accurate, easy hits on a 5-inch plate at 25 yards with most ammo. You don't have to use Mags on soft targets. I just didn't know they cost so much..

 

[BarryinIN]

I've had a 4.25" 69 since 2016 and love it. At least 90% of the bullets through it have been cast.

 

[Bald1]

If I were to buy a "lock gun" it'd be a 2 3/4" model 69. Replace grips and delete lock. I've seen these guns sell for under $700 on GB.

 

[JRD]

S&W stopped using ECR (electrochemical rifling) back around 2017 so whatever rumors you hear about that being the cause of problems certainly can't be accurate.

 

[sandog]

I had a M69 for a while, regretted selling it but I still don't NEED a .44 Mag.
The thing that impressed me about the 69 was the difference in recoil by having the bore slightly lower in the hand, than say a Redhawk or M29.
While most .44's with heavier loads slam back against your hand, the Model 69 lifts straight up, with very little of the twisting back that the others have.
I am more recoil sensitive now at 68 than I used to be, and mostly shoot my 686 and 66-1.
If there is a .44 that recoils more like a .357, the Model 69 is it.

Shooting the 4 inch M66 with stout .357's lifts my hands straight up, not much recoil against the web of the hand, just like the M69 does.
I might add I was not shooting wimpy loads in the 69, as I also had a Marlin 1894 carbine and I used some of the full power loads I had worked up for that.
No need for any ugly rubber grips, the slimmed down Hogues were fine and never caused any pain.
If I find a need for a .44 Magnum again, the only one I'd consider would be a Model 69.

 

[mtgianni]

I have had one for a while now. It has usually shot mid range 44 mag loads, no bullets over 280 gr and nothing faster than 1200 fps. It has never seen a jacketed bullet. It doesn't lead with powder coated or my homemade conventional lube. I like a 230 gr bullet in it at 1100 fps for most carry loads.

 

[shocker]

My 2.75 69 has a great trigger pull SA or DA. IIRC it is actually lighter than my k-frame 2.75 66-8. For the sake of my hands I limit myself to "moderate" magnum loads.

 

[Michaelp57]

My 4.25" has a heavy but very smooth double action and a crisp single action. Similar to others, I have yet to put anything hotter than 240gr@1180fps though it yet. It is my first and only .44 and I have no complaints. I would agree that the grips are not the greatest. Unless you are wearing gloves while you shoot, it gets a bit slippery.

 

[ImDrRich]

Want a short barrel .44 mostly for 44 Special cast bullet loads. Like the looks of the 69, but keep hearing a lot about issues, like leading with cast. Is this due to EDM rifling? Also, accuracy issues.

This is going to be about a $1000 involvement, so I need to make sure.

Wish I had one.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

I had a M69 for a while, regretted selling it but I still don't NEED a .44 Mag.
The thing that impressed me about the 69 was the difference in recoil by having the bore slightly lower in the hand, than say a Redhawk or M29.
While most .44's with heavier loads slam back against your hand, the Model 69 lifts straight up, with very little of the twisting back that the others have.
I am more recoil sensitive now at 68 than I used to be, and mostly shoot my 686 and 66-1.
If there is a .44 that recoils more like a .357, the Model 69 is it.

Shooting the 4 inch M66 with stout .357's lifts my hands straight up, not much recoil against the web of the hand, just like the M69 does.
I might add I was not shooting wimpy loads in the 69, as I also had a Marlin 1894 carbine and I used some of the full power loads I had worked up for that.
No need for any ugly rubber grips, the slimmed down Hogues were fine and never caused any pain.
If I find a need for a .44 Magnum again, the only one I'd consider would be a Model 69.

That is excellent information! I bought a M69 recently but haven't shot it yet because I am getting a DLC finish applied to it. I bought it because I like the more compact L frame form factor for a woods gun even if I had to sacrifice 1 round. It seems logical that the L frame's lower bore axis would make it a little less snappy, and I'd heard that same thing from other M69 owners as well. I hope I have as good an experience with mine as you did.

Thank you for your post sir!

 

[No Quarter]

I love my 2.75 Model 69. It is one of the most accurate guns I own. A great all around revolver.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

Something worth mentioning about the M69... it would seem counterintuitive being on a smaller frame size, but I believe the L frame M69 is actually stronger than an N frame M29 or 629. I know that sounds crazy, but think about it. The forcing cone is the same thickness as on the 29/629. The cross sectional thickness on areas of the frame and top strap are the same as on a 29/629; it's just that the cylinder and cylinder window are smaller and the distance between cylinder rotation center line and bore center line is reduced. Even though the M69 cylinder is smaller in diameter than a M29/629 cylinder, the fact it only has 5 rounds instead of 6 does 2 things that increase strength. First, the web of steel between chambers is thicker on the 69. Second, since the cylinder has an odd number of chambers, this means that when a chamer is aligned with the bore at 12:00, there is no corresponding bore sitting at 6:00, 180-deg from it as there would be with an even number of chambers. Since the cylinder stop engages the cylinder stop notches at the 6:00 position, the notches are therefore located in the spaces between chamers rather than directly over the chamers as they are on the 6 shot 29/629 cylinder. This avoids the thin web of steel between chamber and cylinder notch. Otherwise, all other features and materials used are the same between the two. It really doesn't matter much, as both revolvers are more than strong enough for the relatively small amount of full power .44 mag loads the average shooter is likely to ever put through them, but the point is, you don't sacrifice strength and longevity by selecting the 69 over its N frame brethren.